Lord Ashcroft

[colonel c]

With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.

AFP said:

LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.

The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.

Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.

There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.

The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.

But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.

[Jovial Joe]

colonel c said:

With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.

AFP said:

LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.

The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.

Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.

There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.

The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.

But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.

"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"

Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.

[Fittster]

Jovial Joe said:

"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"

Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.

The point being the conservative party, who he funds to a significant degree said he would change his tax arrangements so he would pay in the UK. He has avoided doing that, therefore you can't (and here's a surprise) trust what a political party says.

[Corsair7]

Jovial Joe said:

colonel c said:

With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.

AFP said:

LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.

The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.

Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.

There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.

The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.

But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.

"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"

Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.

When someone saves they'll 'stop avoiding paying tax' and then does the opposite then surely people have the right to question their actions?

[hornetrider]

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

[Fittster]

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

[Jovial Joe]

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

Read the above again. You're referring to two seperate issues.

[Fittster]

Jovial Joe said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

Read the above again. You're referring to two seperate issues.

Err, no I'm not.

This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".

[plasticpig]

Crap article. He would never be liable to pay inheritance tax. His estate might be liable but would be dead so liable to pay nothing. If he lives for 7 years or more his estate wouldn't be liable to pay anything. The transaction may well be subject to capital gains tax though.

[Jovial Joe]

Fittster said:

Jovial Joe said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

Read the above again. You're referring to two seperate issues.

Err, no I'm not.

This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".

He's not dead yet.

Plastic Pig explained it above.

Edited by Jovial Joe on Monday 27th September 13:22

[jezzaaa]

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

I see a political issue with the spirit of what he offered to do being negated by his repositioning of assets. However, if I was in his position, I would have done the same thing. As I suspect most people would. The problem here is that he's being criticised by people who aren't in the same position and are never likely to be. I'll wager that if any of these people actually had the money/property and subsequently the ability to avoid a 3.6 million tax bill on that money/property, then they would do so. Only those wealthy members of society who have decided not to avoid taxation have any right to comment on this IMHO.

[Fittster]

Jovial Joe said:

Fittster said:

Jovial Joe said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

Read the above again. You're referring to two seperate issues.

Err, no I'm not.

This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".

He's not dead yet.

Plastic Pig explained it above.

Edited by Jovial Joe on Monday 27th September 13:22

And he's going to live forever and therefore there will never be IHT to pay? The point is that he is a British Public figure (seat in the house of Lords, funds the Conservative party) who has set up with affairs to minimise his UK tax when the Government and his party are saying:

"The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals."

The Conservative party say = "Tax Avoidance = Bad"

The man who funds them does "Avoid Tax".

[Fittster]

jezzaaa said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

I see a political issue with the spirit of what he offered to do being negated by his repositioning of assets. However, if I was in his position, I would have done the same thing. As I suspect most people would. The problem here is that he's being criticised by people who aren't in the same position and are never likely to be. I'll wager that if any of these people actually had the money/property and subsequently the ability to avoid a 3.6 million tax bill on that money/property, then they would do so. Only those wealthy members of society who have decided not to avoid taxation have any right to comment on this IMHO.

Lord Ashcroft has entered Public life by funding the Conservatives and taking a seat in the House of Lords, which gives everyone the right to judge him and how he structures his tax affairs. He is part of a government that will change the tax rules governing the rest of the population, therefore it is only right that his own affairs be scrutinized.

[Phil1]

Fittster said:

jezzaaa said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

I see a political issue with the spirit of what he offered to do being negated by his repositioning of assets. However, if I was in his position, I would have done the same thing. As I suspect most people would. The problem here is that he's being criticised by people who aren't in the same position and are never likely to be. I'll wager that if any of these people actually had the money/property and subsequently the ability to avoid a 3.6 million tax bill on that money/property, then they would do so. Only those wealthy members of society who have decided not to avoid taxation have any right to comment on this IMHO.

Lord Ashcroft has entered Public life by funding the Conservatives and taking a seat in the House of Lords, which gives everyone the right to judge him and how he structures his tax affairs. He is part of a government that will change the tax rules governing the rest of the population, therefore it is only right that his own affairs be scrutinized.

When he agreed to be domiciled in the UK in order to pay UK taxes, as opposed to Belize taxes... did he say I'll also pay taxes I legally don't have to? Did he pay taxes he legally didn't have to in Belize?

Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.

[Tom74]

On the other hand, by putting the asset in trust he has effectively given it away, so taken a 17mill hit plus not being the recipient of any income from the shareholding.

Seems the sensible thing to do, just bad timing re his public office!

[Fittster]

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

jezzaaa said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

I see a political issue with the spirit of what he offered to do being negated by his repositioning of assets. However, if I was in his position, I would have done the same thing. As I suspect most people would. The problem here is that he's being criticised by people who aren't in the same position and are never likely to be. I'll wager that if any of these people actually had the money/property and subsequently the ability to avoid a 3.6 million tax bill on that money/property, then they would do so. Only those wealthy members of society who have decided not to avoid taxation have any right to comment on this IMHO.

Lord Ashcroft has entered Public life by funding the Conservatives and taking a seat in the House of Lords, which gives everyone the right to judge him and how he structures his tax affairs. He is part of a government that will change the tax rules governing the rest of the population, therefore it is only right that his own affairs be scrutinized.

When he agreed to be domiciled in the UK in order to pay UK taxes, as opposed to Belize taxes... did he say I'll also pay taxes I legally don't have to? Did he pay taxes he legally didn't have to in Belize?

Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.

But the Conservative party are saying they want to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts. I fail to see how that aim can be squared with Lord Ashcrofts actions.

[Jovial Joe]

Tom74 said:

On the other hand, by putting the asset in trust he has effectively given it away, so taken a 17mill hit plus not being the recipient of any income from the shareholding.

Seems the sensible thing to do, just bad timing re his public office!

17 million he's already paid tax on.

[MX7]

He was entitled to do what he did. You might question it morally, but no law was broken, and anyone in his position would have done the same.

[Oakey]

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

jezzaaa said:

Fittster said:

hornetrider said:

Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.

Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."

Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.

You really, really don't see a problem there?

I see a political issue with the spirit of what he offered to do being negated by his repositioning of assets. However, if I was in his position, I would have done the same thing. As I suspect most people would. The problem here is that he's being criticised by people who aren't in the same position and are never likely to be. I'll wager that if any of these people actually had the money/property and subsequently the ability to avoid a 3.6 million tax bill on that money/property, then they would do so. Only those wealthy members of society who have decided not to avoid taxation have any right to comment on this IMHO.

Lord Ashcroft has entered Public life by funding the Conservatives and taking a seat in the House of Lords, which gives everyone the right to judge him and how he structures his tax affairs. He is part of a government that will change the tax rules governing the rest of the population, therefore it is only right that his own affairs be scrutinized.

When he agreed to be domiciled in the UK in order to pay UK taxes, as opposed to Belize taxes... did he say I'll also pay taxes I legally don't have to? Did he pay taxes he legally didn't have to in Belize?

Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.

But the Conservative party are saying they want to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts. I fail to see how that aim can be squared with Lord Ashcrofts actions.

How can they 'tighten' up on something that isn't illegal?

You've been suckered in by this bullst.

It's as if the majority of the population think that when the tax rules were being written, they deliberately included a load of 'loopholes' simply to benefit the wealthy. How do you even define 'tax avoidance'? Who decides that? Am I a 'tax avoider' by choosing not to smoke? Or paying into an ISA?

Edited by Oakey on Monday 27th September 14:01

[Ayahuasca]

plasticpig said:

Crap article. He would never be liable to pay inheritance tax. His estate might be liable but would be dead so liable to pay nothing. If he lives for 7 years or more his estate wouldn't be liable to pay anything. The transaction may well be subject to capital gains tax though.

Lifetime charge?